The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, December 16, 2016

Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan
said that there would be no limit for the range and amount of missiles
that Iran will develop.

"We will have a new ballistic
missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our
enemies." – Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

The range of existing Iranian ballistic missiles has grown from
500 miles to over 1,250 miles (roughly 2,000 kilometers), which can
easily reach Eastern Europe, as well as countries such as Israel.

The nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA) -- effective, as of October 18, 2015, according to the State Department - clearly and distinctly stipulates that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missile
activity "until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or
until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader
Conclusion, whichever is earlier."

Not only is Iran avoiding honoring this stipulation, but also Iran's
ballistic missile operations have significantly ratcheted up. More
importantly, there has been no criticism at all from the Obama
administration or other involved parties regarding this critical
violation.

"In addition to enhancing the precision-striking power
and quality of ballistic missiles, the Iranian authorities and experts
have used innovative and shortcut methods to produce inexpensive
missiles, and today we are witnessing an increase in production [of
ballistic missiles]."

Iran is bragging about it.

In addition, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan said that there would be no limit for the range and amount of missiles that Iran will develop. He boasted:

"90 percent of the country's defense systems have reached
an acceptable standard and enjoy competitive quality compared with the
weapons of advanced countries; production of the national individual
weapons and efforts to improve the quality and precision-striking power
of ballistic missiles are among the defense ministry's achievements in
the defense field."

Fars News reported on a December 6, 2016 statement from Iran's Defense Minister:

"His remarks came as the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps
(IRGC) fired 2 home-made 'Qadr H' ballistic missiles from the Eastern
Alborz Mountains at a target in Iran's Southeastern Makran seashore some
1400km away... The missiles were fired on the sidelines of the main
stage of the IRGC drills in Central Iran and various parts of the
country."

One missile, which was launched on March 2016, had a clear message written on it that said in the Hebrew language: "Israel should be wiped off the Earth". Fars Agency adds:

"Qadr is a 2000km-range, liquid-fuel and ballistic
missile which can reach territories as far as Israel... The missile can
carry different types of 'Blast' and 'MRV' [Multiple Reentry Vehicle]
payloads to destroy a range of targets. The new version of Qadr H can be
launched from mobile platforms or silos in different positions and can
escape missile defense shields due to their radar-evading capability."

Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and
laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles. For example, on March 2016,
Iran tested a new ballistic missile, capable of carrying multiple
warheads. More recently, Iran fired a test missile with an accuracy
within 25 feet, which is characterized as "zero error," according to
Brig. Gen. Ali Abdollahi, the Iranian military's deputy chief of staff,
and Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency.

The range of existing Iranian ballistic missiles has grown from 500
miles to over 1,250 miles (roughly 2,000 kilometers), which can easily
reach Eastern Europe, as well as countries such as Israel.

According to a previous report obtained by the Associated Press,
the launches are "destabilizing and provocative" and the Shahab-3
medium-range ballistic missile and Qiam-1 short-range ballistic missile
fired by Iran are "inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons."

In addition to violating the nuclear agreement, provoking and
threatening other nations, and destabilizing the region, Iran is
breaching two UN Security Council Resolutions. Security Council
resolution 2231 (section
3 of Annex B) "calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to
ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear
weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."

"Iran shall not undertake any activity related to
ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including
launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take
all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or
technical assistance to Iran related to such activities."

Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East. It
is also the most diversified one. No country, other than Iran, has
acquired long-range ballistic missiles before obtaining nuclear weapons.
Ballistic missiles can be used for offensive or defensive purposes, but
sophisticated missiles are more likely developed as delivery vehicles
for nuclear weapons.

"Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan
praised the country's military might...saying the Islamic Republic can
mass produce ballistic missiles with any range and destructive power...
In the missile sphere, Iran has been able to maximize the accuracy of
projectiles, as emphasized by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah
Seyed Ali Khamenei, with reliance on the local forces, Brigadier
General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said at an academic ceremony in Tehran on
Tuesday."

Iran is also is increasingly provoking other countries in the region,
and has made it clear that the ballistic missiles are aimed at
targeting other nations. Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, said previously
to FARS news agency
that "Iran has built missiles that can hit targets at 2,000 Km. They
are designed to hit Israel at such a distance." He added that Islamic
countries have surrounded Israel and "its [Israel's] life is short. So
it will collapse in any given war -- long before a missile is even
fired."

Iran also exports these missiles to its proxies across the region. Tasnim news agency quoted General Hossein Salami as saying:

"Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles that are ready to hit
Israel to liberate the occupied Palestinian territories if the Zionist
regime repeats its past mistakes... today, the grounds for the
annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are (present) more than
ever."

In addition, Gen. Salami warned Israeli leaders that if they make the "wrong move," Israel would come under attack.

It is crucial to point out that both Iran's so-called "moderates" and
hardliners are on the same page when it comes developing ballistic
missiles. When his country was unveiling a new missile, Fateh 313,
President Hassan Rouhani pointed out that "we will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies."

The Obama administration, the international community, a major global
power, or a coalition of nations need robustly to confront these
provocations, threats, and violations of the nuclear deal and UN
Security Council Resolutions by Iran.

The danger of Hezb'allah is inherent in its origin as well as its activity.

In an interview on September 3, 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump confessed he could not identify the leaders of major militant groups in the Middle East. More pertinently, he added that he would know the difference between Hamas and Hezb'allah when it was appropriate. Trump explained, "I would know the difference within 24 hours after I got the job."Now that Trump has the job, he is well aware of the menace of Hezb'allah to Israel, to U.S. interests in the Middle East, and to himself. He is aware that Sheikh Naim Qassem, second in command of Hezb'allah, has referred to him as a "racist."Hezb'allah, the "Party of God," is a Shi'a terrorist organization basically located in Lebanon whose objectives are to establish an Islamic government in the Arab world; to oppose the U.S., which it blames for many of Lebanon's problems; to liberate Jerusalem; and to eliminate the State of Israel.The danger of Hezb'allah is inherent in its origin as well as its activity. It was founded in 1982, though its roots go back to a group called Islamic Amal, as an adjunct of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, soon after the Islamic State was established. The core of the movement lay in the effort to collaborate with Iran's fighters in Ba'albek in the northern Beqa'a valley to take part in the jihad against Israel. From the Ba'albek area, Hezb'allah quickly spread into Shi'ite areas in Beirut and in southern Lebanon.The organization grew as it fought the French and American peacemakers who were in Lebanon after Israel withdrew from Beirut in 1985. Hezb'allah acquired both weapons and an increasing number of recruits. It received money and weapons from the Syrian Assad regime and therefore helps protect Syria's political and military interests. But more important, it gets financial aid, weapons, and explosives from Iran. The October 22, 1989 Taif Accord was agreed to in order to end Lebanon’s sectarian civil war and called for disarmament of militias. However, it led Hezb'allah to call its military wing the Islamic Resistance. It continued its guerrilla war in south Lebanon and then took part in political matters, participating in national elections in 1992.Hezb'allah's assault on Western targets and its terrorist attacks began soon after its creation. It was responsible for the truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, in which 258 U.S. servicemen were killed – the single deadliest death toll for the Marine Corps since World War II – and 58 French servicemen. The U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut was attacked in September 1984. Members of Hezb'allah were responsible for the hijacking of TWA flight 847, when a U.S. Navy diver was murdered. In October 1997, the U.S. State Department labeled Hezb'allah a terrorist organization.The killings continued. Hezb'allah claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Israeli Embassy on March 17, 1992, when 29 were killed and 242 injured, and the bombing of the Jewish organization AMIA in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994, when 85 were killed. It also assassinated the commander of the South Lebanon Army in his home and engaged in attacks in the Caribbean; Central America; and Bangkok, Thailand.Because of the sectarian clashes in Lebanon in 2008, Hezb'allah participated in the political process, getting the right to veto any cabinet decision. In 2009, it won 10 seats in Parliament and became part of the unity government, which it soon helped destroy.President Trump is now well aware of this terrorist group. The danger of it was shown during the second Lebanon war in 2006, when Hezb'allah fired 4,000 rockets at northern Israel, killing 43 civilians. Now, estimates are that it has more than 100,000 rockets, which can cover all the area of Israel. There are thousands of Hezb'allah positions, infrastructures, and weaponry in 200 villages and towns along the Israeli border. Hezb'allah has weapon warehouses, rocket launchers, underground tunnels, anti-tank positions, and command posts in southern Lebanon ready to strike at Israel. Hezb'allah now has guided missiles with 500-kilogram warheads and advanced air-defense systems. It has acquired not only rockets and missiles, but also the capacity for naval warfare, including Russian anti-ship Oniks missiles, weapons that can be used not only against maritime and land targets, but also against offshore gas rigs that Israel is developing.Thousands from Hezb'allah went to fight for the Assad regime in Syria, and more than 1,500 died there. But it is still preoccupied with Israel. Hezb'allah leader Hassan Nasrallah has warned that he is ready to strike anywhere in Israel.

Consequently, Israel has struck back against the advanced weaponry and rockets being transferred from Iran via Syria to Lebanon.The Israeli attempt to prevent air transport, as well as other forms of transport, from Iran to Syria has been limited to some extent because of Russian activity. The Russians have provided protection of Syrian air space with long-range S-300 and S-400 weapons. Nevertheless, the Israeli air force has struck targets, as in December 2016, when Israeli jets destroyed a convoy of weapons, including chemical weapons, and a strike at the Mezze military airport near Damascus to stop the flow of sophisticated weapons, military equipment, and weapons of mass destruction to Hezb'allah.The ambitious Hezb'allah has been challenging the Sunni states, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf countries. It was responsible for bombings in Kuwait led in 1983 by Mustafa Badreddine, since killed by explosives in Damascus's airport on May 13, 2016. On March 1, 2015, the Sunni Gulf countries labeled Hezb'allah, which was trying to recruit members and to smuggle arms and drugs into their countries, a terrorist organization.President-Elect Trump appreciates that the real supporter of Hezb'allah remains Iran, and he understands the influence of its activities by Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds force. Trump is already aware that the lifting of sanctions on Iran in the nuclear deal was a bad mistake and is concerned that Iran not seek to dominate the Middle East. To that end, Trump should form a partnership with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to control or overcome the activities of Hezb'allah, a danger in itself to world peace and a surrogate of Iran.

Michael CurtisSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/donald_should_trump_hezballah.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It is not just that they have extremist literature in Canadian
schools and mosques, it is that in some instances they have nothing but
extremist literature.

Islamists, including Majzoub,
have a long history of dragging prominent people and organizations into
their arguments about extremism, terrorism and radicalization. These
Islamists do not use their influence to drain the resources of Islamic
terrorism in Canada and elsewhere, nor do they seek to stop young
Canadians from joining ISIS. They do not use their knowledge or money to
dismantle the infrastructure of extremism, nor do they attempt to
dismantle the historical and religious arguments in favor of terrorism.
Rather than do any of this, they instead make it their priority to
intimidate, harass or sue those who speak out against Islamist extremism
and its accompanying terrorism.

The prevailing religious interpretation of groups such as the
Muslim Brotherhood and its adherents is that anyone who objects to their
interpretation of Islam is to be considered a disbeliever. Because of
their disbelief, they deserve to be killed in the present life and
should then suffer the punishment of Allah in the next life. If killing
them in this life is not an option, then spreading hate and anger
against them is acceptable.

The other main problem the Parliamentary action against
"Islamophobia" is that it gives the false impression that groups such as
the Canadian Muslim Forum or the Muslim Brotherhood can speak for
Muslims. In fact, they do not. In the UK, it was recently revealed that
only about 2% of UK Muslims feel that the Muslim Council of Britain
represents them.

It is not just that they have extremist literature in Canadian
schools and mosques, it is that in some instances they have nothing but
extremist literature. The Ottawa Public Library, for instance, has
nothing but extremist literature in its Arabic language collection.

The first victims of this will be secular and modernist Muslims who oppose extremism -- and their families.

Islamist front groups in Canada and the West have dragged the media
and the political "elites" into their extremist messaging. Rather than
learning about why extremism and terrorism come out of their religion,
Islamists instead concentrate on preventing the victims of their
violence from speaking out. They do this by shouting "Islamophobia" at
every opportunity, and do so most loudly at modernist or secular
Muslims.

The Parliament of Canada, for example, passed an "anti-Islamophobia" motion on October 26, 2016. Samer Majzoub, the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, was the person behind the Parliamentary petition against "Islamophobia"; it generated some 70,000 signatures. The sponsor of the motion in the House of Commons was MP Frank Baylis.

Both Majzoub and the Canadian Muslim Forum have a rather long list of dubious connections to Islamist groups and the foreign money used to support them. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is the real intent of Samir Majzoub, the Canadian Muslim Forum and its exploitation of the over-hyped concept of "Islamophobia"?
As noted, Islamists, including Majzoub, have a long history of dragging
prominent people and organizations into their arguments about
extremism, terrorism and radicalization. These Islamists do not use
their influence to drain the resources of Islamic terrorism in Canada
and elsewhere, nor do they seek to stop young Canadians from joining
ISIS. They did not stop suicide bombers in Canada such as Aaron Driver or Calgary-based Salma Ashrafi,
who became a suicide bomber in Iraq. They do not use their knowledge or
money to dismantle the infrastructure of extremism, nor do they attempt
to dismantle the historical and religious arguments in favor of
terrorism. Rather than do any of this, they instead make it their
priority to intimidate, harass or sue those who speak out against
Islamist extremism and its accompanying terrorism.

Samir
Majzoub (left), the Islamist president of the Canadian Muslim Forum,
was the person behind the recent Canadian Parliamentary petition against
"Islamophobia." Both Majzoub and the Canadian Muslim Forum have a long
list of dubious connections to Islamist groups and the foreign money
used to support them. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood. (Image
sources - Majzoub: Canadian Muslim Forum video screenshot; Parliament:
Saffron Blaze/Wikimedia Commons)

Why should life be dangerous for Muslims, their families and others who reject the charges of Islamophobia?

The prevailing religious interpretation of groups such as the Muslim
Brotherhood and its adherents is that anyone who objects to their
interpretation of Islam is to be considered a disbeliever.
Because of their disbelief, they deserve to be killed in the present
life and should then suffer the punishment of Allah in the next life. If
killing them in this life is not an option, then spreading hate and
anger against them is acceptable.

The side effects of the supposed "Islamophobia" activity is an
increased threat to Muslim families in Canada and the USA. Modernist and
secular Muslims are afraid to speak out against extremism, for fear of
being labelled as traitors to their own community. They also fear for
their businesses and their children, who may come under verbal and
physical attack. Because of petitions and Parliamentary actions such as
those in Canada, modernist and secular Muslims and their families are
forced either to agree with the false precepts of "Islamophobia" as
advanced by extremist front groups, or to disagree with them but remain
silent. Unfortunately, disagreeing with the Muslim Brotherhood and its
front groups can be dangerous and even fatal.

The other main problem with the Parliamentary action against
"Islamophobia" is that it gives the false impression that groups such as
the Canadian Muslim Forum or the Muslim Brotherhood can speak for
Muslims. In fact, they do not. Groups such as the Canadian Muslim Forum
or the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have little evidence to show they have anything approaching majority support. In the UK, it was recently revealed that only about 2% of UK Muslims feel that the Muslim Council of Britain represents them. Moreover, CAIR, despite its claims of moderation, was declared to be a terrorist entity by the United Arab Emirates.

With no mandate to speak on behalf of Muslims, Islamists such as
Majzoub should not be regarded as "leadership" figures. They intimidate
other Muslims and work to silence anyone who speaks against them. This
is a sort of intellectual fraud: no one elected them to speak on behalf
of Muslims. From an Islamic religious perspective, it should be noted
that Allah has no agents or representatives on Earth, so their claim to
speak on behalf of Muslims is theologically weak, at best.

In Canada, Islamist-run schools use extremist literature
from the Middle East to teach their children. It is not just that they
have extremist literature in Canadian schools and mosques; it is that in
some cases they have nothing but extremist literature. It is also not just Islamist-run schools and mosques that are the problem. The Ottawa Public Library, for instance, has nothing but extremist literature in its Arabic language collection.

Conclusions

The Parliamentary motion condemns all forms of "Islamophobia," without making any attempt to define what that means. As Judith Bergman put it:

The questions need to be asked: What exactly are they
condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed?
Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of
Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees
with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values
or the teachings of the religion of Islam now to be considered an
"Islamophobe"?

The Canadian Parliamentary motion on "Islamophobia" is indeed a large
stick that is designed to be swung at anyone who makes even the vaguest
criticism of extremist Islam and its front groups. Rather than draining
the extremist swamp or defunding their centers of activity, motions
such as this are intended to weaponize words so that critics can be
silenced by criminalizing anything that varies from political
correctness, as in the clearly politically-motivated conviction of Dutch MP Geert Wilders last week.

The first victims of this will be secular and modernist Muslims who oppose extremism -- and their families.

Saied Shoaaib is a journalist and author originally
from Egypt. He was the editor and manager of the Alyoum7 news website
and the manager of "United Journalist." In 2007, a leader of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt raised questions about his work in the Egyptian
Parliament. The questions were specifically aimed at the Attorney
General of Egypt. For many years, his life and his family have been at
risk because of constant threats aimed at his writings against and
Islamists, terrorism and Islamic extremism. He has written several books
on extremist Islam, journalism and the electronic media.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9577/muslim-brotherhood-shouting-islamophobia Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Putin is now -- suddenly -- everywhere.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The media keep hyping the Democrats’ desperate rationalizations for blowing an election they thought was in the bag. Voting-machine tampering, a treacherous James Comey, internet “fake news,” FOX News on every bar and pool hall television set, “deplorable” racist dunces in fly-over country, and now the Rooskies have the Dems and their NeverTrump Republican fellow travelers in a never-ending hysterical tizzy.

The Washington Post and the New York Times, ad agencies for the Democrat Party, “report” that an anonymous intelligence officer told some Senators that the “consensus view” of the CIA is that the Russians hacked the DNC emails in order to give Trump an advantage in the election. Rational people will wait for more conclusive evidence than an assertion by an anonymous leaker of classified material. But determining the Russians hacked the DNC is easier than factually establishing their motives. If the CIA really has evidence that proves Russia’s intent to benefit Trump, it should publicize it and let us make up our own minds.

We should also note that the FBI doesn’t agree with the CIA, asserting that no such definitive evidence exists. California Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee agrees. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it,” Nunes has said. And isn’t it curious that progressives who for nearly half a century have routinely demonized the CIA as a “rogue elephant rampaging out of control,” in the words of Democrat Senator Frank Church in the seventies, now find the agency the epitome of reliability and truth?

This Russia-hacked-our-emails excuse, however, is particularly preposterous and tin-eared. Does Hillary Clinton really want to bring up computer hacking? She violated the law by passing classified materials over an unsecured server, which almost certainly was hacked by several foreign governments, including Russia. Now she wants us to believe that hacking the email chatter of her staffers and dirty-tricks henchmen is more serious and damaging to our national security than what the Russians probably got off her server?

But the Russians interfered in the election! Democracy is at risk! This is the “political equivalent of 9/11!” the Huffington Post screeches.

To believe that, you’d have to believe the leaked chit-chat of the DNC and Hillary’s staffers convinced about 100,000 voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan to vote for Trump instead of Hillary. You’d have to believe those voters ignored Hillary’s 25 years of lying and money-grubbing, her pay-for-play State Department, her utter lack of any vision or policy prescriptions other than decrepit progressive bromides, her lousy campaign, her questionable health, her lack of trustworthiness, and her intentionally putting national security at risk with her private server, but then balked at her flunkeys’ trading snarky gossip and pulling dirty tricks on the Sanders and Trump campaigns. And let’s not forget that harping on who hacked the emails or why is not as important as their content––not because they changed the election, but because they revealed the sleazy tactics and sordid chicanery of the holier-than-thou DNC.

Even the Times admits that “there is no evidence that the Russian meddling affected the outcome of the election or the legitimacy of the vote.” Then what’s all the fuss about? Russia, China, Iran North Korea, and no doubt other countries are continually trying to hack our corporate and government computers. And they regularly try to influence our elections, as Lloyd Billingsley wrote recently about Russia, which has been at it for decades. Even our allies try to influence our elections, like former British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called Trump “divisive, stupid, and wrong” for suggesting isn’t such a good idea to let in immigrants from countries that breed jihadist terrorists.

What’s really preposterous, though, is the claim that Russia wanted Trump to win rather than Hillary, who some deluded neocons think is some sort of foreign policy “hawk” preferable to the “isolationist” and “inexperienced” Trump. Yes, the same “experienced” Hillary who plumped for the NATO removal of Gaddafi from Libya, leaving behind a Darwinian jihadist jungle awash in weapons, and creating the conditions that got four Americans murdered. The same Hillary who hand-delivered a plastic “reset button” to the Russian foreign minister, symbolizing the new era in Russo-American relations. The same Hillary who was Secretary of State when Obama threw the Poles and Czechs under the bus over missile defense to placate Putin; when Obama skedaddled from Iraq and created the vacuum Russia filled; when Obama, now demonizing Vladimir, asked then Russian president Dmitri Medvedev to reassure Vlad he would be more “flexible” after the election.

The Obama-Clinton-Kerry team’s bone-headed supplication of Putin has ended up with Vladimir dominant in the Middle East, free to bomb civilians, prop up the butcher Assad, and empower Iran, the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. But we’re supposed to believe that a Hillary presidency, certain to continue the same policy of retreat and appeasement, scared Putin so much that he hacked the DNC to get Trump elected, all because Trump made a few nice comments about him? Putin has shown he’s much more ruthless and savvy than that, and much too smart to believe that he could actually use the juvenile patter of the DNC’s emails to influence enough voters to change their vote and swing the election to Trump.

This latest bout of hysteria by the Dems no doubt won’t be the last. It will just shift to Trump’s cabinet picks, as we’ve already seen with the slanderous attacks on Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions, or the ginned up paranoia about nominating three generals in his cabinet, even though Obama did too. In fact, we can expect this duplicitous bluster and partisan tantrums to continue for most of Trump’s presidency, as it did during Nixon’s, Reagan’s, and George Bush’s. That’s how progressives roll politically, convinced as they are of their right to rule and the self-evident superiority of their policies. Those who think otherwise aren’t just wrong, but evil. The sooner Republicans recognize this reality, the sooner they’ll drop the phony bipartisan comity and fight with every weapon in their Constitutional arsenal.

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265126/dems-latest-excuse-losing-bruce-thornton Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

…and protests Muslims on behalf of Muslims.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

The left’s latest target is a Chanukah party where it will be protesting Muslims on behalf of Muslims.

If you’re confused, imagine how confused they are.

The Azerbaijani embassy of a secular Muslim country is co-hosting a Chanukah party with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. But the Azerbaijani embassy had made the political faux pas of obtaining space at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C.

Outside the usual anti-Israel contingent of the anti-Jewish left, If Not Now and Jewish Voice for Peace, will be screaming hate. Meanwhile some more organized left-wing Jewish groups, the Union for Reform Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, along with the anti-Israel activists of Ameinu and Peace Now, not to mention HIAS, which can't wait to bring the synagogue bombers of tomorrow to America today, are boycotting a Muslim party to protest in favor of Muslims.

Some are demanding that Trump speak out in favor of Muslims before they’ll attend the Muslim party. If they were any more mixed up, they would be tying their shoelaces to someone else’s shoes.

The Workmen’s Circle, which was last relevant when Bundists were helping the Communist butchers of the USSR hunt down Rabbis and religious Jews for the gulags, announced that it was boycotting an event hosted by a Muslim country because Trump is anti-Muslim.

When it comes to Trump, a militant atheist organization is now more Muslim than the Muslims.

Azerbaijan is not the first Muslim country to hold an event at the Trump International Hotel. It won’t be the last. Why does the National Council of Jewish Women seem more outraged about being in a hotel with Trump’s name on it than actual Muslims? Who made the Union for Reform Judaism their Imam?

But when leftists weren’t accusing Trump of being anti-Muslim, they were outraged that the Trump International Hotel was accommodating Muslim countries such as Bahrain and Azerbaijan because, like every single Muslim country on the planet, they have human rights issues. If you don’t have relations with Muslim countries that violate human rights, you can’t have relations with any Muslim countries.

Was the problem that Trump was anti-Muslim or that he was taking money from Muslims?

The deranged left couldn’t decide. Numerous contradictory letters blasted Trump for being anti-Muslim and for doing business with the Muslims of Azerbaijan. A weary Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, asked, “Do you think the president-elect knows who rents rooms for two hours?”

Trump may not, but a left that has lost its mind over Trump most certainly does.

To make the outrage even more ridiculous, the Azerbaijani embassy only picked the Trump International Hotel because of its proximity to the White House so that some of the same left-wing leaders boycotting the party could attend Obama’s Chanukah party and their party on the same night.

Of somewhat less interest to them, but more relevance, the Trump International Hotel, the venue where protesters will arrive clutching their grimy copies of Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America, was one of the few that could handle Kosher. After the election, I listened to a Rabbi recall how pleased Trump had been at being shown how the kitchen of his Mar-a-Lago resort had been made Kosher.

Unlike JVP, If Not Now, Ameinu, Peace Now and the Union for Reform Judaism, Trump likes Jews.

The anti-Trump mob that loves Muslims, unless they book a room at the Trump International, hates Jews. The party is taking place during a major visit by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Azerbaijan. The most vocal opponents of the event don’t just hate Trump, they also hate Israel. They hate Israel so much that they’re discovered a sudden interest in the human rights situation in Azerbaijan.

They couldn’t have found Azerbaijan on a map a month ago to save their lives. Now after 5 minutes of googling, they’re instant experts on the human rights situation in a country whose name they can’t spell.

Azerbaijan’s human rights are vastly superior to its enemy, Iran, whose government was illegally supplied with billions of dollars by the Obama regime in a deal that they vigorously supported. The National Council of Jewish Women endorsed the Iran nuclear sellout. Ameinu gathered signatures in support of the hollow agreement which will let Iran go nuclear. Peace Now rallied its members to thank the politicians who supported the pass for Iran’s nuclear program and to yell at those who didn’t.

Ann Toback of the Workmen’s Circle fumed that the party “legitimizes a corrupt country where freedoms have been suppressed”. This is the same radical organization that put out a statement backing the Iran deal which legitimizes a genocidal terror state where freedom hangs at the end of a noose.

The left likes to pretend that it hates Trump because it loves Muslims. But the truth is that it doesn’t love anyone. Not even its Muslim allies for whom it pokes safety pins through its sweaty shirts and dirty blouses. The left does not love. It only hates. It hates Trump, because it hates America. It hates Israel, because it hates Jews.

It rages about the “normalization” of anti-Semitism even as it endorses Keith X. Ellison who defended the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, who accuses Israel of being an apartheid state and Jews of being mobilized by Israel to do its bidding. J Street boss Jeremy Ben Ami insists that Ellison’s views “are perfectly consistent with the views of the majority of American Jews”.

That’s the normalization of anti-Semitism in black and white. Trump isn’t behind it. The anti-Jewish left is. The anti-Jewish left has lost its morals and its mind. Its protest of a Chanukah party is an ugly tantrum in a teapot. It has become so deranged that it’s protesting Muslims on behalf of Muslims. But anything goes when it comes to hating America. Anything goes when it comes to hating Jews.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265137/anti-jewish-left-protests-chanukah-and-trump-daniel-greenfield Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ursula von der Leyen refused to wear a hijab on a visit to Saudi Arabia and instructed her staff that they didn't have to, either.

Germany's minister of defense has sparked outrage in Saudi Arabia by following her own customs. Ursula von der Leyen refused to wear a hijab on a visit to Saudi Arabia and instructed her staff that they didn't have to, either.

The horror!

She is not "submitting."

("Islam" means "submit.") The U.K. Sun reports:

THE GERMAN defence minister has caused outrage in Saudi Arabia after she refused to wear a hijab during an official visit.

Ursula von der Leyen and her team did not wear the traditional veil which is worn by women or the full length Abaya garment even though she has claimed to ‘respect’ the country’s customs.

Her decision not to wear a hijab during her meeting with the Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al Saud, was not met warmly by Saudi’s who took to Twitter to express their anger, the Express has reported.One translated Tweet read: “The German Defence Minister: not wearing the hijab in Saudi was deliberate. This is an insult to Saudi Arabia.”According to an Iranian newspaper, Von der Leyen said: “No woman in my delegation will be required to wear the abaya, as the right to choose one’s attire is the right shared by men and women equally.”

This is the way it should be. Islamic law applies only to Muslims. Not non-Muslims. When I think of the bravery of von der Leye and contrast that with dhimmis like the Bush administration who covered themselves up like they were auctioned off at the slave markets of Raqqah, it sets an example for the rest of the world that they needn't kowtow to Islam.

Nor is it an act of terrorism for people to host a "Draw the Prophet Mohammad" contest. That's not an act of hate. That's making a statement that you're not subject to the rules of another religion.

Furthermore, America shouldn't be required to make religious accommodations in businesses, such as fashion, where dress is an important part of the job. Remember the hijabi who sued Abercrombie and Fitch, claiming she had the right to wear a "head scarf" in the teen clothes fashion store?

So the Saudis are upset with the German defense minister. Good. They should get used to not being accomodated, and they need to learn that their religion does not rule others. If only Ursula von der Leye, not Angela Merkel, were prime minister of Germany.

Islam eventually has to come to terms with being one among many religions, which will be extremely difficult. Saudis may be offended by the sight of a female's hair, but many Americans, iuncluding me, are offended by fully covered Muslim women moving around in our cities. If they insist that our women cover up when visitng Saudi, then we have the right to insist that their women appear unveiled.

Ed StrakerSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/12/german_defense_minister_enrages_saudi_arabia_during_visit.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

As a superpower, the U.S. had a
responsibility to be ready to use its power, including the wise use of
military power.

In one month, President
Barack Obama will leave the Oval Office after eight years. On the eve
of his departure, the burning battlefield of Aleppo is attesting to his
incomprehensible weakness in Syria and the larger international arena.

There is no doubt that
the atrocities committed in Aleppo will cast a dark shadow on Obama's
legacy and possibly even his conscience, and will serve as a constant
reminder for the American people of the disastrous consequences of a
weak, placatory and spineless foreign policy when what was needed was a
moral and strategic commitment to lead the international community.

The execution of
hundreds of innocents with no hope of salvation inside the crushing grip
of President Bashar Assad's forces in eastern Aleppo bears witness that
under the 44th president's watch, the American nation refused to
fulfill its most basic commitment. As a superpower, the U.S. had a
responsibility to be ready to use its power, including the wise use of
military power. When the president shamefully broke his explicit promise
in September 2013 to use force against Assad's murderous regime if the
"red line" was crossed by the use of chemical weapons, Obama
categorically contributed not just to the continued bloodshed in Syria,
but also to the shift in the balance of power between central players in
the global arena. Russia was the one who filled the vacuum in the wake
of the U.S.'s absence, becoming a major aerial fighting force in the
war.

President Vladimir
Putin clearly learned his lesson from Washington's failure to act. Half a
year after Obama refused to fulfill his promise of action in Syria, on
March 18, 2014, the Kremlin annexed the Crimean Peninsula. This signaled
the start of the ongoing military push to topple the anti-Russian
government in Kiev that came to power in February 2014. The White
House's display of weakness in Syria during Obama's presidency is
precisely what brought the Russian bear out from hibernation and into
the center of the international playing field -- at the expense of the
deteriorating influence of the American superpower.

It is obvious that the
shadow cast by the failed war in Iraq was in mind as the White House
recoiled from the challenge in Syria. Additionally, the risk of
transferring advanced weaponry to pro-Western rebels was considerable.
Despite this, all memories, repercussions and considerations should have
been forgotten when the extent of the bloodbath became apparent. This
proves just how far away Obama's and Secretary of State John Kerry's
rhetoric was from the existence and true essence of leadership. In
practice, real leadership is a type of conduct that does not refrain
from standing face to face against the axis of evil and blood. True
leadership does not substitute flowery speeches for decisive, even
brute, force if necessary.

One can only hope that
the correct conclusions and lessons learned will seep into Obama's
conscience. With this in mind, the sweeping critique against appointing
Rex Tillerson as secretary of state is nothing but hollow. When all is
said and done, Tillerson created "terms of endearment" with the Kremlin
after doing business based on the principle of mutual respect, and not
the principle of one-sided concessions as in Obama's workshop.

Prof. Abraham Ben-TzviSource: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17887 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Israel is a tiger not a rabbit, and when you threaten to destroy us, you place yourself in grave danger," PM Netanyahu tells Kazakh president in message to Iran • Israel-Kazakhstan relations "part of this great change the world is waiting for," PM says.

"Israel is a tiger, not a rabbit, and when you
threaten to destroy us, you place yourself in grave danger. Ask him,
why do they persist in this? Tell him that if they change their attitude
toward Israel, we will change our attitude toward Iran. But they have
to understand that we will not sit idly by as long as they advocate our
annihilation."

Netanyahu, who met with Nazarbayev to sign an
agricultural cooperation treaty and a memorandum of understanding for
cooperation on visas, said that Israel plans to lobby to become a member
of the U.N. Security Council in 2019, and is asking for Kazakhstan's
support.

"We supported Kazakhstan's successful bid for a
seat on the Security Council, and now, if you want to see real change
in the world, imagine the State of Israel on the Security Council,"
Netanyahu said.

He said that as a nation with a Muslim majority, Kazakhstan's solid ties with Israel "reflect a better future."

"This example of cooperation between Jews and
Muslims reverberates throughout the world. The relationship between us
and our Arab and Muslim neighbors is changing dramatically. Not
everything is public, but things are changing dramatically, and I see
the ties with Kazakhstan as part of this great change the world is
waiting for," Netanyahu said.

"The world wants to see the forces of progress,
solidarity and friendship, not the forces of intolerance, repression and
terror."

Shlomo CesanaSource: Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

-- the cartoons presented the Assad regime and its allies as
the perpetrators of war crimes and mass-murder. They also leveled harsh
criticism at the U.N. and international community

The
humanitarian disaster in eastern Aleppo due to the massive attacks of
the Syrian regime and its allies, Russia and Iran, on the city, as well
as Aleppo's recent recapture by the regime, have been widely addressed
in the Arab media, including in many Cartoons, especially in the Gulf
press. Depicting the catastrophic situation in Aleppo prior to its fall,
and also commenting on the deal for evacuating civilians and fighters
from the city, the cartoons presented the Assad regime and its allies as
the perpetrators of war crimes and mass-murder. They also leveled harsh
criticism at the U.N. and international community for ignoring Aleppo's
plight and not doing anything to rescue the city.

The following is a sampling of the cartoons published in the Gulf press.

Aleppo Is Being Pulverized; Innocents Are Being Massacred

Aleppo weeps as its babies are massacred (Arabi21.com, December 9, 2106)

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Last week, Israel’s defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, announced that Israel was working tirelessly to thwart Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah via Syria. For the first time, Lieberman hinted that in addition to sophisticated weaponry, Hezbollah was seeking to acquire WMDs. The defense minister also noted that Israel would operate to preserve its interests “without taking other circumstances or restrictions into account.” Presumably, this means that regardless of the prospects of Hezbollah-Iranian retaliation or the presence of a Russian anti-aircraft umbrella, Israel will continue to act when its interests are threatened.

Lieberman’s tough talk followed a series of Israeli strikes against military targets within Syria. The first targeted a Hezbollah weapons convoy traveling along the Beirut-Damascus highway while a second strike hit a Syrian military compound just outside Damascus housing elements of Syria’s 4th Armored Division. A third attack on December 7 targeted Mezzeh Air Base in western Damascus. A number of secondary explosions occurred following the attack indicating direct hits.

Assad’s propaganda outlet, Sana, as well as the Hezbollah-affiliated Al Mayadeen TV channel blamed Israel for the Mezzeh attack though the former claimed the strike was carried out with surface-to-surface missiles while the latter alleged that it was executed by fighter jets flying over “Lebanese airspace.”

Following the attacks, Arab media reported that Russia had warned Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, not to retaliate. Russia’s interest in Syria is to ensure the survival of its air and naval facilities centered in or near Latakia and Tartus. Putin has no interest in needlessly antagonizing the Israelis and any form of Iranian or Hezbollah retaliation serves no Russian purpose and may in fact, undermine Moscow’s goals.

Hezbollah was quick to deny the Arab media reports terming them “incorrect and completely invented.” Despite the fact that Hezbollah uses principally Russian weapons and is wholly subservient to Iranian interests, it continues to maintain the façade of an independent, indigenous “resistance” organization. That is why Arab media reports of Russian warnings to the terror group provoked an immediate temperamental response but it is likely that those media reports were accurate.

In Syria, Putin pulls the strings and but for Moscow’s intervention, Assad’s position would be extremely precarious. It is therefore likely that Russia put the kibosh on any thought of Hezbollah retaliation as that kind of action would antagonize Israel and run counter to Russian interests.

On Sunday, in a 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu classified Israel’s relations with Russia as “amicable.” That description might be bit of an understatement. At a recent conference hosted by the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Russia’s envoy to the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov termed relations between Moscow and Jerusalem “at their highest point ever.”

This diplomatic accomplishment can be directly attributed to Netanyahu’s relentless international effort to broaden and deepen Israel’s relations with non-traditional allies. Though the United States will never be supplanted as Israel’s most important ally, eight years of Obama have taught Israel that it cannot rely solely on the United States for backing.

To that end, Israel, under Netanyahu’s stewardship, sought diplomatic breakthroughs with other nations and that effort has paid high dividends, especially with respect to Russia-Israel relations. Because of those efforts, Israel can now freely operate when necessary in Syria to preserve its interests despite the deployment of sizable Russian forces in theater. Both sides maintain political and military liaisons that are in constant communication to prevent mishaps. In addition, Arab media reports confirm speculation that Russia has placed a leash around the necks of Iran and its Shia proxy.

Notwithstanding Russian constraints on Hezbollah and the organization’s deep involvement in Syria’s quagmire, the terror group is constantly looking for ways to strike at Israel in a manner that does not break the rules of the game. Its cells operate in Europe, Africa, Latin America, South-East Asia and the Asian sub-continent, looking for weak points and ways to create mischief. The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, in which six civilians were murdered on Bulgarian soil, represents a good example of the type of response we can expect from the Iranian proxy group.

In addition, last week, the Israeli military released an illustrative map demonstrating the extent to which Hezbollah has transformed South Lebanon into one giant ammunition dump and embedded itself within the civilian population in blatant violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. Flush with Iranian cash, in part received from the Obama administration during a ransom exchange, Hezbollah pays impoverished residents of South Lebanon to store their munitions in their homes.

The IDF has identified over 10,000 structures and underground munitions silos constructed by Hezbollah in or near civilian areas. Such a deliberate undertaking which makes use of human shields constitutes a war crime. But Hezbollah does not feel constrained by meaningless U.N. resolutions that are more bark than bite. Israel for its part will not be constrained by Hezbollah’s cynical exploitation of the civilian population. In the next war, it is highly likely that Lebanon’s civilian population will pay a steep price and the blame will rest squarely with Iran and Hezbollah.

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265127/israel-walks-walk-ari-lieberman Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.